The Supreme Court has ruled that a prolonged period of separation between spouses, coupled with the absence of any genuine effort to rebuild the marriage, can constitute mental cruelty and serve as a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Background
The judgment was delivered in a case involving a couple, both government doctors, who had been living separately for over 15 years after a marriage that lasted only two to three months of actual cohabitation. The Supreme Court upheld the divorce granted in favor of the husband, observing that a marriage cannot be kept alive merely as a legal formality when the relationship has effectively ended.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that the spouses had chosen separate professional and geographical paths. The wife continued her work as a gynecologist in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat, while the husband served as a doctor in Rajasthan. Both remained estranged throughout this period.
Legal Observations
The Court observed that in such situations, separation is not merely about one spouse abandoning the other but may reflect a shared, de facto abandonment of the marriage itself. The bench stated: "The intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles, separate domiciles, and the total cessation of marital interaction over fifteen years establishes a de facto abandonment of the marital covenant by both sides."
Details of the Dispute
The couple married on December 5, 2007, in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat. No children were born from the marriage. The husband filed for divorce in 2009 before the Family Court at Bharatpur, Rajasthan, alleging cruelty. The Family Court rejected his plea, holding that he had failed to prove cruelty. However, the Rajasthan High Court reversed this decision in January 2025, granting divorce.
Among the grounds considered by the High Court were the wife allegedly denying conjugal rights on several occasions, sleeping in a locked room during the brief period of cohabitation, and the couple's long separation. The wife then challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court noted that even during the short period of cohabitation, the wife used to sleep early, lock her room from inside, and not open the door when the husband knocked, leaving him to sleep in a separate room. This fact was not denied by the wife.
Referring to its earlier judgment in Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh, the bench reiterated that "unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty." The bench further emphasized: "Matrimony is not a one-sided right to be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always tied to the duties they owe to the other."
While the wife consistently maintained before every court, including the Supreme Court, her desire to continue the marriage, the bench found this difficult to accept at face value. Mediation ordered by the Supreme Court itself in May 2025 had failed, as reflected in a mediation report dated November 27, 2025.
The court also noted that it was not in dispute that the wife continued her government job in Gujarat, and that no evidence had been placed on record to show she had genuinely attempted to move to Bharatpur to join the husband. "Actions speak more than the dry words," the bench remarked.
Final Decision
Invoking its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to do "complete justice," the Court dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The bench observed: "Prolongation of a matrimonial relationship would further lead not only to escalation of frustration in a dead relationship, which has already decayed and is decomposing day by day creating foul sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life resulting in denial of a free and independent environment to flourish."
It noted that both parties are financially independent doctors in government service, and that there are no children from the marriage, meaning the divorce would not have a devastating effect on any third party. The apex court dismissed the wife's appeal, upholding the divorce decree.
